Lisa M McElroy1, Amna Daud2, Brittany Lapin2, Olivia Ross2, Donna M Woods3, Anton I Skaro2, Jane L Holl3, Daniela P Ladner3. 1. Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: lisa.mcelroy@northwestern.edu. 2. Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 3. Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of medical errors and adverse events remain high for patients who undergo kidney transplantation; they are particularly vulnerable because of the complexity of their disease and the kidney transplantation procedure. Although institutional incident-reporting systems are used in hospitals around the country, they often fail to capture a substantial proportion of medical errors. The goal of this study was to assess the ability of a proactive, web-based clinician safety debriefing to augment the information about medical errors and adverse events obtained via traditional incident reporting systems. METHODS: Debriefings were sent to all individuals listed on operating room personnel reports for kidney transplantation surgeries between April 2010 and April 2011, and incident reports were collected for the same time period. The World Health Organization International Classification for Patient Safety was used to classify all issues reported. RESULTS: A total of 270 debriefings reported 334 patient safety issues (179 safety incidents, 155 contributing factors), and 57 incident reports reported 92 patient safety issues (56 safety incidents, 36 contributing factors). Compared with incident reports, more attending physicians completed the debriefings (32.0 vs 3.5%). DISCUSSION: The use of a proactive, web-based debriefing to augment an incident reporting system in assessing safety risks in kidney transplantation demonstrated increased information, more perspectives of a single safety issue, and increased breadth of participants.
BACKGROUND: Rates of medical errors and adverse events remain high for patients who undergo kidney transplantation; they are particularly vulnerable because of the complexity of their disease and the kidney transplantation procedure. Although institutional incident-reporting systems are used in hospitals around the country, they often fail to capture a substantial proportion of medical errors. The goal of this study was to assess the ability of a proactive, web-based clinician safety debriefing to augment the information about medical errors and adverse events obtained via traditional incident reporting systems. METHODS: Debriefings were sent to all individuals listed on operating room personnel reports for kidney transplantation surgeries between April 2010 and April 2011, and incident reports were collected for the same time period. The World Health Organization International Classification for Patient Safety was used to classify all issues reported. RESULTS: A total of 270 debriefings reported 334 patient safety issues (179 safety incidents, 155 contributing factors), and 57 incident reports reported 92 patient safety issues (56 safety incidents, 36 contributing factors). Compared with incident reports, more attending physicians completed the debriefings (32.0 vs 3.5%). DISCUSSION: The use of a proactive, web-based debriefing to augment an incident reporting system in assessing safety risks in kidney transplantation demonstrated increased information, more perspectives of a single safety issue, and increased breadth of participants.
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Yuelin Li; Charles W Coffey; Laura Sit; Mary Shaw; Dawn Lavene; Antonia V Bennett; Mike Fruscione; Lauren Rogak; Jennifer Hay; Mithat Gönen; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: M M Abecassis; R A Fisher; K M Olthoff; C E Freise; D R Rodrigo; B Samstein; I Kam; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Neil M Vora; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Katherine A Feldman; Christopher D Paddock; Lillian Orciari; Steven Gitterman; Stephanie Griese; Ryan M Wallace; Maria Said; Dianna M Blau; Gennaro Selvaggi; Andres Velasco-Villa; Jana Ritter; Pamela Yager; Agnes Kresch; Mike Niezgoda; Jesse Blanton; Valentina Stosor; Edward M Falta; G Marshall Lyon; Teresa Zembower; Natalia Kuzmina; Prashant K Rohatgi; Sergio Recuenco; Sherif Zaki; Inger Damon; Richard Franka; Matthew J Kuehnert Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeantine M de Feijter; Willem S de Grave; Arno M Muijtjens; Albert J J A Scherpbier; Richard P Koopmans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: L M McElroy; D M Woods; A F Yanes; A I Skaro; A Daud; T Curtis; E Wymore; J L Holl; M M Abecassis; D P Ladner Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2016-01-23 Impact factor: 2.038